Pope Francis, Another Zealot?

Take a good hard look into the life of new pope. To give an overview he thinks that:

Homosexuality is still a sin. He tells people to respect homosexuals, but whent the Argintinian government is going to make sam-sex marriage legal he says, "Let's not be naive, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."

During his early life he gave up all his fancy posetions (personal cook, facy place to live, chauffeured limo) and made a pledge of poverty. This sounds awefully noble right? Wrong, look at why he had those things to start out with (because he was a cardinal). Think about what the Bible verson of Jesus would have done. He probably wouldn't have even considered giving those things out to preachers of his word anyway. So denying riches should be something that cardinals and popes HAVE to do an shouldn't be praised for. By the way, the pledge of poverty meant that he just had to live like everyone else in the community (what a saint -- sarcasm)

Lastly, there was a criminal complaint filed against him by a human rights lawyer for the abduction of two Jesuit priests. However, there was no evidence to prove that he had anything to do with it. :)

@Dr.Grixis, you are correct in that I was speaking of Roman Catholicism, not any of the other Catholic sects, though to my knowledge none would be fundamentalist. Can you name one that you believe is?

Yes, my language on the second point was unfortunate and unintended. There were of course bodies of learning and scholarship before Christianity; indeed, Christianity borrowed the scholarship of Judaism. The point was only that the concept of Western Universities was one that grew out of, and still retains the trappings of, Roman Catholicism.

The Platonic Academy (sometimes referred to as the University of Athens), founded ca. 387 BC in Athens, Greece, by the philosopher Plato, lasted 916 years (until 529 AD) with interruptions. It was emulated during the Renaissance by the Florentine Platonic Academy, whose members saw themselves as following Plato's tradition. [wikipedia]

Of course, fundamentalism is a term that has a loaded meaning and depending on what kind of characteristics you assign to it, you could argue that certain catholic sects are most likely fundamentalist, while the RCC is considered by some to be fundamentalist based upon their (strict) adherence to dogma/doctrines, many would argue that it's at least a much less fundamentalist version of Christianity than, for instance, the Jehova's Witnesses.

So, before we could argue (if we have to) about which catholic sect is, or is not, fundamentalist we would first have to agree on what is fundamentalism, especially because it's most often taken to mean the protestant flavor of Christianity.

To be honest, it's not that I really want a debate/discussion about it, I would hope that we can agree that fundamentalism is a matter of degree(s)?

The point was only that the concept of Western Universities was one that grew out of, and still retains the trappings of, Roman Catholicism.

Western civilization has a lot of it's roots in the RCC, which has a lot of it's roots in the Roman Empire/Society, which had a lot of it's roots in Ancient Greece. For sure, a lot of the structure was borrowed/inspired from seminaries etc.

What I mean to say is that Western Civilization (and Universities) were not build or thought of in one day, and for sure the main contributor in regards to religious culture in Western Europe for centuries was the RCC. It is therefor of course very logical to see the RCC's influence in many of today's institutions.

The RCC did quite some good stuff, by preserving a lot of the texts (culture and knowledge) of the ancient world, of course with hindsight I would argue that they could have done a lot better of a job at it, but then again, I've seen religions (and political parties) do a lot worse in a shorter time frame.

That being said, when you said "All churches try to do is teach what is right." all I could think of is that for me the main reason why I dislike the RCC is because the clergy is so convinced that what they are doing is right, and that the RCC is good, that they are blinded to all evidence to the contrary.

Their strict belief that the RCC is right and good stops them from being critical towards their religion, and it stops them from improving matters. (I'm thinking of contraception among other subjects).

The whole thing about education was that the clergy was to be educated (and the wealthy) to better control the people during the Middle Ages. If no one but the clergy could read scripture, then no one can argue with their lethal dogmas.

RE: "We're the ones that wrote and compiled the Bible" - not really, Prof., the Bible was written by dozens of different people over a 1,000-year time period, partly in Hebrew and the latter part in Aramaic and finally, the NT in Greek, the lingua Franca of the day. Then the WHOLE thing was translated into Greek, and only then, into Latin, so I really don't believe your Papa-come-lately's can take credit for anything but the tail end of that process.

The Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation of the Old Testament that was widely used in the Roman Empire, and was (I believe) used as a source for the King James Bible, actually predates the new testament. (Perhaps you are thinking of a later translation.)

It was, in fact, Matthew's source when he claimed Jesus fulfilled the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy of being born of a virgin. The Hebrew has almah (young woman) [and by the way the context makes it clear Isaiah was prophesying that he himself would knock the chick up--unimpressive as prophecy but somewhat more as PUA/"game"], the Septuagint rendered it as parthenos (virgin) and voila! A Greek who probably didn't know any Hebrew authoritatively quotes a prophecy that was never actually made, and claims Jesus fulfilled it!

I'm not familiar with Septuagint LXX, but the original Septuagint, created on the coast outside of Alexandria, was done by 72 Jewish priests, interviewed extensively and selected from among hundreds for their proficiency in both Hebrew and Greek - and BTW, it was accomplished in, you guessed it, 72 days - what is this Middle-Eastern preoccupation with 72?

It was based on their love of 12 - a highly composite number, having 1,2,3, and 4 as factors. Base 12 numbering systems totally rock as well, with terminating 'decimals' for 1/4,1/3,1/2, 2/3, and 3/4 being 0.3, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 0.9!

In base 10, numerology seems to love numbers composed of digits that add up to 9 - that's as much 'power' as you can get because once you hit 10 you get 1 + 0 = 1, as little 'power' as you can have.

So although 60 was popular because it has 1,2,3,4,5, and 6 as factors, 72 added up to 9 and was considered more 'lucky' while still having 1,2,3,4,6,8, and 9 as factors.

"There's no "enforcement". God and the universe are what they are, and people always have free will to be ignorant, whether it's about climate change or sexual morality. All churches try to do is teach what is right."

This is your policy? You learn something new every day. So - why should Christians behave in a moral fashion?